ABA Journal

Legal Ethics

Head of Fla. Foreclosure Mill Firm Agrees to Shut Down Law Practice

By Martha Neil

Jan 7, 2013, 08:20 pm CST

A 90 day suspension? Is a 90 day suspension fair punishment for all the misery this man is responsible for causing? A suspension of 90 days does nothing to deter lawyers that think this kind of behavior is acceptable. I think this makes the Florida bar look pretty bad.

By Island Attorney on 2013 01 08, 12:10 am CST

re #1, this was a 91 day suspension, which is a big difference over a 90 day suspension. Any suspension 91 days or more means the attorney must reapply for admission to the Florida Bar in order to practice in Florida again. For now Watson's career is over.

By 91 day suspension on 2013 01 08, 2:34 pm CST

The practices described are a common business plan. The article suggests that these practices are a thing of the past, but they are continuing in the present and will continue into the future, if nothing more is done than a 91 day suspension for failing to supervise employees. What we are seeing in the Northern Midwest are actual forgeries of mortgage assignments and forged endorsements on mortgage notes, which is also a common business plan throughout the nation. The production of forged documents in court proceedings (state judicial foreclosures and bankruptcy lift stay motions and proofs of claim) is ongoing.
Christine Romans of CNN "reported" bank talking points this morning regarding the OCC/Federal Reserve Bank's conversion of their investigation to a settlement which she characterized as being made by regulators to the detriment of the banks for shoddy loan practices in the past, completely ignoring the real issue: forged documents upon which homes were stolen with the approval of defrauded courts. The desecration of our system of justice continues.
Isaiah 10:1-2
“Woe to those who decree unrighteous decrees,
Who write misfortune,
Which they have prescribed
2 To rob the needy of justice,
And to take what is right from the poor of My people,. . . "

By Peoples' Lawyer on 2013 01 08, 2:54 pm CST

The assertion above by the commenter that "Watson's career is over" because of a 91-day suspension is utterly absurd and demontrably false. Utter fabrication by this person who posted, who is probably a Florida Bar operative.

The VAST majority of lawyers who get 91-day suspensions are let back in. That can be proven. Rare is the exception.

Now, this warranted a disbarment, and he didn't get it because there is a cozy arrangement between The Bar and these lawyers that nothing really onerous is going to happen to them. Pam Bondi is in on this fix.

I should know. I was PERMANENTLY DISBARRED for going on 60 Minutes to blow the whistle on a porn company. This truth-telling inconvenienced a specific Bar Governor.

If anyone wants to know more about what a sordid deal the above story reveals, feel free to contact me at amendmentone@comcast.net. Jack Thompson, Miami

By Jack Thompson on 2013 01 08, 3:27 pm CST

A 91 day suspension is a joke. The Florida bar should be ashamed of itself. I can only wonder who was on the decision making board who laid down this punishment, outside counsel for mortgage companies? Can anyone find this out? It would be interesting to know the backgrounds of those attorneys.

By Visitor on 2013 01 08, 4:29 pm CST

Roy Oppenheim comments? LOL Roy Oppenheim is about as terrible as Marshall Watson. Roy treats employees and vendors like they are substandard not even human beings. He's terrible to work for as an employee or as any vendor. Roy's the perfect example of why people hate attorneys.

By Frank Rizzolo on 2013 01 08, 4:50 pm CST

@Jack Thompson

Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari, docketed December 14, 2012 in the Supreme Court of the United States, argues that the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar do not protect consumers of legal and court services, or honest lawyers. Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (1975) held lawyers engage in "trade or commerce" and hence ended the legal profession's exemption from antitrust laws.

Petition No. 12-7747 argues in Reasons For Granting The Petition "The Florida Supreme Court has misused its monopoly over the practice of law, through malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance, by and through its disciplinary arm, The Florida Bar, which unfortunately is being operated in a fashion as to protect itself and certain favored dishonest lawyers rather than the public and honest lawyers."

The American Bar Association in February 1992 issued a report by the McKay Commission entitled Lawyer Regulation for A New Century: Report of the Commission on Evaluation of Disciplinary Enforcement. The Report made this warning 20 years ago:

"The incompetence and neglect of relatively few lawyers must not continue to sully the image of the rest. We cannot afford to let legitimate disagreements between lawyers and clients go unresolved. Without a mechanism to resolve these complaints and disputes, clients are harmed and the profession's reputation unnecessarily suffers."

"The consequences of continuing to ignore these problems are clear. The Federal Trade Commission has made several attempts to gain jurisdiction over some complaints against lawyers. State legislatures have made forays into lawyer regulation with increasing frequency. Legal consumer organizations have grown in membership and in political activism."

I am NOT an attorney or paralegal. I am merely a sovereign American with certain unalienable (NOT inalienable) rights.
It seems to me, as ignorant as I am of the law, Marshall Watson can be sued by anyone of the 66,000 people his actions damaged. Perhaps one or more attorneys can represent these homeowners to recover some, if not all, of their loses? Even at a 50% fee, homeowners will receive something. Jack Thompson above should be hired as a consultant as he has paid the ultimate price for telling the truth.
It's just an idea.....
Dr. James Chappell

By James Chappell on 2013 01 08, 7:51 pm CST

The attorney could have been charged with - THE RIOC ACT .

By POA CONSULTANT on 2013 01 08, 9:45 pm CST

Banks have been turning their backs on the tactics of their foreclosure lawyers for at least 36 years. Since I have been in practice, the 'big banking firms' have charged the banks whatever they wanted as fees and expended a fortune in "costs" to their friendly (or subsidiary) vendors. It never mattered to the "client" (the bank), because the billing would be either paid by the "victim" (their customer) or wrapped up in the judgment which was satisfied (paid from the bank's point of view) at the time the property was sold.

Did anyone at the banks care about the foreclosure crisis until they were left with a box of properties with little or no value? Did they care what they paid their lawyers? Did they care what was going on in their foreclosure departments? Does anyone at the banks care now that they have been bailed out?

Crooks, the best word for the guys running these banking firms.

Don's ask be how I feel about Community Association law firms which make their money off of residents who are unable to pay assessments?

By John from Florida on 2013 01 09, 1:09 pm CST

Technically this mans firm is not really being shut down one day, I read where he has set up his business as usual in his brothers law firm. What a bunch of crap. Amercians are waking up to the most organized crime wthout any punishment in history.

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 11, 3:17 am CST

I find this story rather disturbing. How can Mr. Watson still be an attorney after this? How many people have lost their homes, wrongfully, because of his desire to be rich? This is pathetic, it really is. How can the Florida Bar so openly shout from their offices that they only care about themselves?

@James Chappell - Just off the top of my head, most of these people probably signed their legal rights away to avoid further damage. Then also, you're talking the need for money to hire an attorney, which most of these former homeowners will not have. Class action, maybe? I don't know. But I know from past experience, in another state mind you, that the bar would assign another law firm to handle complaints, and then pay out of the state bar's recovery fund, which is extremely limited when it comes to something this big.

@ Jack Thompson - I don't know you, however your story sounds intriguing, but perhaps this was the beginning of you losing your license? http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2005/10/5458-2/
If that's the same Jack Thompson, a former attorney from Miami.

By Not sure on 2013 01 11, 2:30 pm CST

As I have said before, the system wasn't broken until Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started requiring every bank, savings & loan and other entity servicing their loans to use only law firms on their very short list of "acceptable" (i.e politically connected) law firms. The concept of quality control is fine, but when you start to awarding ALL of the foreclosure work for an entire state to 3-4 firms, you cannot help but have these kinds of problems. Instead of letting each servicer hire their own Attorneys and supervise them accordingly, Fannie and Freddie have created a handful of these "foreclosure kings" throughout the country. In most cases, the loan servicers don't even want to use these firms, because the service is terrible, but Fannie and Freddie give them no choice.
The typical "forclosure mill" is owned by a very small number of extremely wealthy, politically connected partners, who rake in millions in fees, to preside over a large staff of paralegals and recent law school graduates who churn out the paperwork to process thousands of cases through the system as if it were an assembly line. With the sheer volume of paperwork, the time pressures, and the millions of dollars involved, it was inevitable that people were going to cut corners, and the "robo-signing" was the result.
In the wake of the robo signing scandal, Fannie and Freddie are now moving back to letting the individual servicers choose their own counsel, as long as Fannie and Freddie "approves" the law firm. The early indications, however, suggest that the requirements to get approved are going to be tilted in favor of the big "assembly line" firms, so the problem may not be going away any time soon.

By small town lawyer on 2013 01 11, 2:44 pm CST

The described business practices of Mr. Watson are the NEW NORMAL, i.e. the race to the bottom by the legal "profession". I do not condone Mr. Watson's practices or procedures, and in fact I believe they have no part in the "practice" of law. However, those practices and procedures were exactly what that firm's customers, the foreclosing banks, desired-high speed, low cost foreclosures regardless of professional standads, because the almighty dollar was most important, not legal ethics. I believe that is exactly what the "New Norma" is leading to, and I believe the legal profession should not be a part of that New Normal as people's rights get trampled and professional judgements obscured. Just call me old fashioned thank you.

By Experienced Lawyer on 2013 01 11, 2:45 pm CST

As per usual, the Florida Bar acts just enough to give the appearance that it is doing something – when, in fact, it’s not. A 91-day suspension is not a difficult thing to overcome in FL and Watson will likely be re-admitted. The Florida Bar and the Florida Judicial system should be ashamed. For those of us who litigated on behalf of homeowners, we made repeated attempts to bring the fraudulent documents to the Court’s attention, but when you get 5 minute trial settings (15 minutes for a “long” trial) and the Judge takes the Bank’s attorney’s word that the docs are verified and “original” there is no due process and no justice. Watson’s firm is just one of many who engaged in this kind of fraud, but the Florida Bar and the Florida Judicial system were complicit in it as well.

By Former FL Litigator on 2013 01 11, 2:48 pm CST

@12: To answer your question, probably zero. A lot more people lost their homes out of their own desire to be show-offs.

By DirkJohanson on 2013 01 11, 2:59 pm CST

Yay, a nutjob thread!

By Gray Proctor on 2013 01 11, 2:59 pm CST

Disbar, reprimand, dismember, whatever, the lawyer, but some people use these practices as a defense against the note or foreclosure. That should not be countenanced. They borrowed the money - they didn't pay -- foreclosure is just. (But the proper procedure should be followed).

By Oort Cloud on 2013 01 11, 2:59 pm CST

I agree that Mr. Watson's practices were shoddy. But, I think it is a large assumption to accuse him of unjustly foreclosing on homeowners. It is quite likely that the homeowners did not pay. I think if we are truly concerned about the homeowners we should do more to address predatory lending that preys on people by providing them loans designed to rob them, if they can meet the terms, or ensure that they will default based on their limited means. We should do more to help people who have acted prudently but due to a lost job, significant medical expenses related to an illness to themselves or a family member or any number of other ways a person might through no fault of their own suffer an economic setback. If Mr. Watson's procedures had been pristine, many of these same homeowners would have still lost their homes. Yes, punish shoddy legal work but punishing the lawyers doesn't address the real problem.

By AND THE BEAT GOES ON on 2013 01 11, 3:07 pm CST

@16 - Yeah, I don't think so. I've read plenty of stories where people were foreclosed on illegally. While I'm sure a lot of people were in over their heads, my guess is that more than just a few here were illegally foreclosed on.

By Not sure on 2013 01 11, 3:08 pm CST

@20 - The last thing the banks want is more inventory in their REO accounts.

By Russell on 2013 01 11, 3:42 pm CST

As a practical matter, these affidavits were long considered a formality in the world of creditor's rights. I have been on both sides, and I have successfully defended against foreclosures for these very practices. I reviewed many documents where the attorney's signature was obviously signed by support staff. As attorneys, we need to realize that if your signature (or that of your corporate client) is required by a court, that court has a reason for requiring it. Never lose sight of the fact that the extra three minutes it takes to actually read something and sign it yourself, could mean the difference between winning and losing your case. The court will consider it as someone's home at stake, not just the workload on your desk.

By Street Lawyer on 2013 01 11, 3:42 pm CST

He'll probably just retire and golf at one of the 3-5 extra vacation homes he bought with the millions of dollars he unjustly "earned." Seriously? a 91-day suspension? Like that even matters to a person like this...

By HeShouldBeDisbarred on 2013 01 11, 4:31 pm CST

To the party that responded they barrowed the money they need to pay it. You obivously are clueless to what is going on. The people would gladly pay the mortgages with the incomes that were ruined by the orgainized corruption of the banks. When the HAMP progam was put in place it was to foam the runnway for the banks to steal the mortgages after the banks ruined the economy by their greed. The people dont owe the bankd. they owe the investors the pension funds the people the banks also stole from. But not the banks. The judges are forcing the people to pay the villioans and not the rightful people that loaned the money. The people and the pension funds and investors are owed money by the banks. Mostlikely treble damages and the house. Why do you think so many foreclosure mills were producing fraud docs.? If the banks had not pulled such a big heist of the wealth and destroyued the notes to hide the con job? HAVE YOU ASKED YOURSELF WHY SO MANY FRAUD DOCS BY EVERY FORECLOSURE MILL IN THE US? Why millions upon millions are fighting to keep their homes due to fraud and why millions have been foreclosed? Unrealist precidented amounts of people? The poeple know they should have never lost their homes. We know we have been screwed. Have you read the report Wall Street and the financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collaspe. A 650 page report by experts after thousands of testimonies, emails and depositiions state the banks organized a crime against homeowners and their own clients the investors, there fore proof of criminal acts.? Read the Wikepedia version to shorten it to a few pages if you wish. The HAMP program was used by the banks to litterlally tell people to get behind on perpose declaring the bank would help them then, the only thing the bank did was to tricjk the homeowners into foreclosure bylistening to them. The banksters had no intention of helping only intention to steal the house, using the HAMP to steal. Look up Geithner admits HAMP was never intended to help the homeowners but to help foam the runway for the banks. The modification plan was used to steal the homes. My small business have declined to 65,000.00 net profit a year from 155,000.00 net profit a year. Our bills and homes were affordable and I usually pay my house off long before the contract is due. I was two years from paying my house off when the ecnonomy went south so I put a loan on it to ride the what I thought would be a couple years of slow ecnomy that has turned into almost a decade and will be if this ever ends. Some businesses and income were effected mroe than others. More are going to be effectyed. If you are one of the lucky ones, You are lucky. You may not be clear of this yet. I have multiple customers telling me they were not effected until this year and had to lay off employees. It is not over. Have you looked up the LIBOR rigged rates? There is not one peel of the onion that the banks committed a crime and had the upper hand to steal the wealth. The banks are the dead beats and not the homeowners nor pension, nor investors. The investors and pension and homeowners need to be repaid for this financial harm, and the loss of their homes and properties times treble.

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 11, 5:16 pm CST

To #24 Shelley: The bankers made billions of dollars. The homeowners, real estate brokers, contractors, eveyone else, made trillions (in the aggregate). The bankers were simply one group that did what every other group did. Barney Frank made many many political points. Everyone was feeding at the gravy train, the bankers no worse than the many homeowners who lied on their mortgage docs (it's no excuse that an unscrupulous mortgage broker told them to do it).

The bankers' fees were but a fraction of the entire principal balance of the loans -- and somebody got this money and spent it. There is no way around that. The people who stupidly borrowed the money and stupidly spent it are most guilty of all. It is just a large political lie that the lenders are more responsible than the borrowers.

The reason this story is not told, however, is that there are millions and millions of culpable borrowers who are looking to blame someone for their own problems.

I'm no friend of bankers -- they were stupid and greedy -- that's what led to their downfall -- but for Americans to see who the real stooges and villians are -- many many homeowners need only look in a mirror.

Let me ask -- did you borrow money to remodel during these years -- upgrade your house -- or take cash out to spend it on something else? If not, you're not to blame. If you did -- I further ask whether you are over-leveraged at today's values (i.e., you are probably not overleveraged if your all-in payments do not exceed about 28% of your income and you have adequate equity in your house -- perhaps 20%). If you did these things, and now find yourself over-leveraged, then you, too, are to blame and your aspersions are nothing more than hypocrisy.

By Oort Cloud on 2013 01 11, 6:48 pm CST

Russell @21 - You are right. The banks didn't want more inventory in their REO accounts. But, their greed got the best of them. So, they rolled the dice with the expectation that most folks would do whatever it took to find a way to pay the robbery rates of their predatory loans. They anticipated that they would make so much money on the robbery rates, even if the homeowners could pull it off for the life of the loan. And, they will to accepted the expense of a larger than usual REO inventory that might result. If you asked me, it paid off.

And, now with this article we are vilifying the attorney beyond what I believe is his due for the problem. As I stated earlier, I agree that he should have done his work in a legally ethical manner, which would have made it less likely that anyone who did not belong in the foreclosure process was appropriately pulled. However, I believe that the bigger problem is the greed of the banks that put the file on his desk.

By AND THE BEAT GOES ON on 2013 01 11, 7:02 pm CST

@26 - Oh please - the bank's "greed" -- i.e., their desire to reduce costs -- is not as bad as the attorney who violated his professional ethics by robo-signing -- his greed to earn income by obtaining greater volume by taking short-cuts to reduce cost.

This is why we have regulation and professional ethics. The larger failure in this case was the low ethical and moral standards of the attorneys who reduced their prices below actual costs by short-cutting procedures.

Everyone wants to blame CORPORATIONS as if that somehow absolves real people. The mortgage mess was a failure by real people -- big and small.

Members of the bar who did this should be dismembered.

By Oort Cloud on 2013 01 11, 7:26 pm CST

To #25 I took out the loan without liying about my income to pay bills on a business that was making just under a million gross, neting 155,000.00 a month that dropped dramatically within six months after the loan to half that and worse dramatically later on. My house was valued much higher tahan it is now due to the blackmailed appraisal fraud, no one understood what was happening, so most homes are worth far less due to this than they were. If we had a crystal ball and could see the fraud andwhy this ecnomic crisis was going to worsen until the banks were about to go bankrupt. I and many i know would not have taken the loans out to keep our small business going. I would have made different choices. Our government was assuring us the economy and the houseing industry was in good shape. I began my business diuring the 1980's depression. No one espected this dkind of collaspe. I knew nothing of the mortgage fraud going on. Until the bank modification defrauded me, then I realized something sinister was going on. My house had all kinds of equity in it and is underwater due to the appraisal fraud by the banks. I realized then and there somethbng evil was happening. The banks got bailed out when they were the criminals and dead beats. Do really think the liar loans were problem? The percentage of liar loans is next to nothing. Most of us had businesses over twenty five years. My business is over 32 years old.I like many I know have a great record of being responsible. My uncle whom just passed away and many millionairs like him told me at his eightyth birthday before he died, that their businesses are the slowest in over 60 years. Still continuing to loose money. Investors that had millions have lost their homes and buisnesses due to the banks crimes. The lack of transperancy and the lies from botb our government and the banks which is one in the same, made the deception so bad very few could make the right decisions without a cystal ball. Even Costco has had to tignten its belt and cut back. Most people are not millionaires or billionairs and the average person can not take more than three to going on eight years now of financial losse. The losses began showing up in 2005 and have dramatically slid up to date and the end is not near yet. People who bragged to me there was work if you look for it are now laying off employees. The new tax laws and medial program are adding to layoffs. A decade of financial hell is not going to help. Unfortunately more wil be in this situation. I also believed in their being justice in the courts and there is none. We are dealing with the devil.

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 11, 7:47 pm CST

Not excusing the lawyers, but their lapses are after the fact. As to the mortgage crisis, the press and the pols love to beat up on the banks and brokers, but spare the borrowers who committed fraud because the borrowers watch tv and might vote.

Virtually all of the super brokers, eg, Freemont, Argent, Ocwen, Delta Funding, etc are bust; good riddance. About 14% of the former renters who had bad credit/unverifiable income are renting again; however, about 86% of those former renters remain homeowners. They may owe more than they could sell the house for, but whether that is more or less than their old rent, I don't know. I do think owning a house provides stability and upside equity potential via improvements, market turn around, whatever (and tax breaks) that surpass renting.

By Russell on 2013 01 11, 7:50 pm CST

@28- Blame others if you want, but it sounds like your business tanked. It happens.No idea what you're talking about re "black mailed appraisal fraud", but your house is worth what you or someone else will pay for it.

By Russell on 2013 01 11, 8:08 pm CST

I was not limiting my comments to liar loans.

I think people like you are just as culpable as the banks.

You were short sighted and naive.

You kept your business running, but presumably one of the expenses of your business was your own draw or salary. You basically borrowed on your equity in your home to fund your lifestyle. Hope you enjoyed the good times.

I did not increase my home equtiy loan. I have a 1960s kitchen and a 15 year old car. I make less than $250,000 a year, have money in the bank, but not enough to pay for my kids' college education or fund my retirement. Don't expect sympathy or even empathy.

Homeowners who lived the good or even a better life while some were saving should not expect to be bailed out . People who did this have on one to blame other than themselves. They were the real frauds. It is the pinnacle of hypocrisy to say that you were defrauded into borrowing and spending money. Only an absolute idiot would buy this absolute lie. It is insulting to even try to pass that story of to anyone. That is exactly what is wrong with the Obama folks. They will lie like this so long as they get money. It is sickening.

Let me ask -- did you take an out of state vacation at any time during the years 1999 to 2008? Did you improve your bathrooms or kitchen? Buy a new car? If so, whose money was that? If your house is underwater, it's a sign that it could end up being someone else's money.

If I ever have the good fortune to make more than $250,000 in a year, I think none of this extra income should fund any of Obama's spread the wealth plans. Go away.

By Oort Cloud on 2013 01 11, 8:20 pm CST

You sure jump to a lot of conclusion without knowing the facts. I have not had a vacation for ten years my newest car is twelve years old,, and I work twelve to thirteen hours a day seven days a week. I have seventeen small businesses within my business that rely on me to stay open. Lease booth girls, and I never counted on the crime and deciet of the banks and everyone enabling the banks, including the judges in the courtrooms of crime. You seem to have it all figured out and a mind set of your own. I have lots to do to run my business. So I wont respond to you any longer. You seem to feel you can be the judge an jury. So go for it.

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 11, 8:59 pm CST

No one defrauded you into borrowing money. YOU borrowed money. YOU spent it. End of story. Live with the outcome.

If a lawyer is fraudulently issuing process to you, report the lawyer.

By Oort Cloud on 2013 01 11, 9:30 pm CST

For those of you wanting to learn the truth, go to Wikipedia Wall Street and the financial crisis; Anatomy of a Financial Collaspe and then read the report 650 pages long. Then go to "banks black balled good appraisers if they did not give larger appraisal. The appraiser are guilty of increased property tax on the elderly runing them out of their homes on fixed incomes in states that do not have a fixed property tax. The appriasers willing to do business with the banks on fraud are a huge part of this crime.

@34- No time to read 650 pages, but Wiki is only as good as its contributors. The truth is the banks did NOT have "Approved Appraiser" lists. They had "Disapproved Appraiser" lists and the way to get on them was having "pushed" appraisals (the value pushers were always the borrowers and sometimes their brokers), sloppy appraisal. The banks ran random appraisal reviews and sometime underwriters ordered appraisal reviews if they were suspicious. Despite what you think, the true value was very important to the banks because the property was their only collateral. Claw back provisions in thier investors' contracts meant that even if the banks did not portfolio their loans, they might own them again someday.

For someone who is running 17 businesses, you seem to have a lot of time to post gripes. For someone who was netting $155,000 per month, you sure missed a great opportunity to buy a new car and see the world.

Oort Cloud has it right. I you borrowed money under false pretenses, don't be surprised if you lose your house. If, as you claim, your situation changed after you borrowed, that's the breaks. Good thing you had all those years of netting $155K per month to insure a soft landing. Come to think of it, why did you even need a mortgage? That sort of income could support a $12,000,000.00 mortgage...and you drive a 12 year old car?

Nothing about your story rings true. I won't be engaging any further.

By Russell on 2013 01 11, 10:35 pm CST

Shelley, I don't think there is anyone else here but you and me.

I only respond in hopes that people who think the way that you do might get some sense.

No one forced these elderly people to borrow money.

If appraisers were forced by banks to inflate the appraisals, they should be prosecuted for fraud. That's true.

BUT - the banks only got a fee -- BY FAR THE LION'S SHARE OF THE MONEY WENT TO THE BORROWER.

The borrower got most of the money. What is hard about that to understand? Whether the bank is evil or committed a crime is irrelevant to the fact that the borrower willingly took the money and promised to pay it back. They were not SOLD anything -- they were not defrauded -- they got exactly what they bargained for -- MONEY -- and they promised to pay it back.

The banks only got a small fee compared to what the borrowers got.

Maybe by my saying it so many times you will begin to understand.

By Oort Cloud on 2013 01 11, 10:40 pm CST

Comment removed by moderator.

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 11, 11:03 pm CST

For those who really want to know what has happened to millions of us go to this link. http://www.msfraud.org/howtheysteal.html

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 11, 11:05 pm CST

A senator told me the same thing, she did not have time to read a report hired to be done for the senate. for the senate TO READ! 650 pages of expert witnesses deposiitons emails and soid prrof of bank crimes causing the financial crisis, and due to it blames the real villans and clears the homeowners, no one wants to read it. The tax payers must have spent millions on this investigation. Banks have used the report against banks, WOW! Floors me no one has the time to read it. I yellow markered the most important parts for her to read, and tabbed the pages for the senator.

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 12, 1:21 am CST

The HAMP program to lie to homeowners was to give relief to the REO and slowly parallel foreclosure and not have so many homes on hte books, to keep the public from seeing the horror of it all and to keep the banks from going under by tomany in their snare at once. Read Geithner admits the HAMP program was to foam the runway for the banks never intended to help the homeownrs.

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 12, 1:25 am CST

Comment removed by moderator.

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 12, 1:32 am CST

There is plenty of blame to go around, Shelley, but I am supremely confident far more people foolishly used their homes as ATMs to buy luxury goods - and even pocket cash that they still have today- than elderly lost their homes to increased property taxes. Property taxes are a very small percentage of the value of a property, and most taxing entities appraise far below market value, anyway.

Bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that the sophisticated party in a loan is the borrower. The borrower is far more likely to know their true likelihood of repaying the loan (how solid their job is, whether they will be getting divorced, etc.); all the lender (or its assignee) has are rights on paper. And, as it is often said, possession is 9/10s of the law.

By ABS on 2013 01 12, 1:43 am CST

Look up breaking 10 major us banks agree to settle foreclosure case for 8.5b with fed occ, this is a sad settlement and gives the banks relief not the homeowners but at the very least it is admission of guilt. The bankters should have done time not get off the hook. And now the government is letting the HBSC BANK off and Deutsche Bankl Nat'l off the hook for drug money laundering and terrorist money laundering due to they are to big to prosecute! No justice what so ever and this man and his 71 lawyers enabled the cirmes to take place and are let off the hook.

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 12, 1:47 am CST

I love the part about "preying on unqualified buyers ".

Truth be told that could read a few ways.

But the fact is, whether the borrowers realized or not what they were getting in to, they still BORROWED money -- and by no means were they defrauded. They benefitted -- foolishly, perhaps -- but the rest of us should not be made to for your errors, even if you were led down to the sea by the pied piper!

By Oort cloud on 2013 01 12, 1:47 am CST

Comment removed by moderator.

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 12, 1:53 am CST

Yes, Virginia, there are idiots who need protection from people who will give them too much money.

But, even more than they need protection from banks that will give them more than they should spend -- they need protection from Barack Obama and Uncle Sam -- who is right now giving them more money than they should spend.

Someday, you will be telling us that Barack Obama defrauded you and others by bailing you out, spending too much on your unemployment benefits giving you too much free healthcare, etc. They impoverished you. And you will blame everyone but yourself -- in spite of who you voted for.

You arguments defend iresponsible fools.

As noted earlier, you will never find it any of your on line detritus, a true analysis that attributes one iota of responsibility to the borrowers -- because the politicians and banks (etc) cannot blame the people. This was a failure of American people -- a bacchanal it was -- everyone partied -- the 1920s. And now it's time to pay up. You have no one to blame but yourself.

Stop lying.

By Oort Cloud on 2013 01 12, 2:38 am CST

Virginia due to deregulaition of the policing and laws to protect consumers from banks they believed would never decieve and scam them nor cause your incomes to be extinguished by their corruption did, I would not call unemployment a gift from the government, but a deserved bailout to protect you due to the crime our government has committed. My business is slow, but I survive due to I just do not hire employees anymore. I have a job but none of my employees do. My lease booth people pay rent and are not employees. They are self employed/ I am lucky compared to many. I cut back to survive. then trusted the modification HAMP program to save my house. After five payments the banksters unapproved me after approving me and sending me modiification payment coupons telling me to begin mod payments immediatel and to continue until the final paperwork came. Then they unapproved me and told me my mod payments were considered to be partial payments and I was in foreclosure. This kind of criminal activity at every peel of the onion, is why so many need unemployement. The people deserve help the banks did not.

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 12, 2:55 am CST

When you say, "the people deserve help," you mean "I deserve help."

Ask your friends and family for help -- they know best whether you are deserving. If you are deserving, they will help you. Do not ask people from other parts of the country to help you. If you have no friends or family, then there is another thing you were forgetting all of those years (to develop friends in your community).

You borrowed money -- if the loan is unfair -- pay it back and be done with it. That's how you get out of an unfair loan.

The entire financial disaster is an example why wealth should NOT be redistributed. The fact is, that most people do not know how to handle money. They will squander it on stupid things. Those people who accumulate wealth and accumulate it should keep it and invest it, to produce jobs for those people who, given control over capital, would destroy it (people like you). Some people know how to make money -- but the skill of keeping money is entirely different. The whole concept of wealth redistribution fails to recognize that most people should not have wealth. Fully half of the people out there are spendthrifts. Why spread wealth to them?

Another reason to give you nothing.

By Oort Cloud on 2013 01 12, 3:46 am CST

I have never asked for government help of any kind, And paid a lot of taxes. That does not mean I dont believe people deserve help when this government has deregulated the banks and enabled the ruin of the economy. The people that did have the money and saved and invested were screwed tol The banks did not have the money they took advantage of their clients the ones that did and stole the money from them. Sophisticated investors were taken to the cleaners, the banks deserve nothing, The investors and the homeowners and income earners and business destroyed by the greed of the banks deserve compensation and help. I have family and friends that did help me I have paid a lot back to them and am still paying and will mostlikely be paying for a while , that trusted me due to they know me. And see what has happened to me. The banks have redistributed money from the people that did save and earned the money to their overseas accounts.

look up "read the smoking hot banks intentionally and thouroughly violated the law complanint usa vs foreclosure fraud, due to it wont post either.

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 12, 10:05 pm CST

I love the blame the borrowers posts in this thread.

Nobody told those tens of thousands of our citizens that, if they had a job, good credit and were paying rent, they could afford to own instead. How could anyone think that ever happened?

We all know the borrowers got together in private and inflated the values of properties, faked or fudged appraisals, overstated incomes and got themselves in too deep to withstand the force of the bursting bubble. Nobody ever told those tens of thousands to use the equity in their homes to improve their property. The banks with their political clout and control over Wall Street and the insurance industry were the borrowers' victims. And those oppressed banking law firms, it is sad to see that a few of these greedy borrowers have bruised some of those apples enough to have spoiled the entire barrel of great lawyers. Aren't we glad we bailed out the right groups?

By John in Florida on 2013 01 12, 11:35 pm CST

Who needs to point, just look at the reports from experfts with all these pages of depos, testimony and email by experts. “over 150 interviews and depositions, consulting with dozens of government, academic, and private sector experts” found that “the crisis was not a natural disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products, undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street.” [1] In an interview, Senator Levin noted that “The overwhelming evidence is that those institutions deceived their clients and deceived the public, and they were aided and abetted by deferential regulators and credit ratings agencies who had conflicts of interest.”[2] By the end of their two year investigation, the staff amassed 56 million pages of memos, documents, prospectuses and e-mails.[3] The report, which contains 2,800 footnotes and references thousands of internal documents [4] focused on four major areas of concern regarding the failure of the financial system: high risk mortgage lending, failure of regulators to stop such practices, inflated credit ratings, and abuses of the system by investment banks.
If you bother to read the 631 page report. Then sniffle on your own sleeves. The facts are there. The crime has beencommited and the saying goes if you commit the crime do the time. If lawyers have been ruined it is by their own choices. No one pushed them into it. They know the law. And are mandated by 18 USC 4 to report fraud, not to do the fraud.

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 13, 12:05 am CST

TROUBLES AHEAD FOR JAMIE? oh my!

See bloombergjpmorgan said to weigh releasing report faulting diamon on trades.

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 13, 3:45 am CST

Comment removed by moderator.

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 14, 5:09 pm CST

Comment removed by moderator.

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 14, 5:10 pm CST

From attorney Neil Garfield. whom sees one of the largest causes of the ecjonomic crime is caused by the banks bulling appriasers to give fraud appraisals.
Go to livinglieswordpress and read all. Editor's Comments and Analysis: There is little doubt that but for the rapid increase in housing prices, many buyers would have done nothing. The pressure was on to get on the train before it left the station. You might be stuck in the position of never being able to afford a home.

What buyers (and investors didn't know was that the appraisals were faked. In 2005 8,000 appraisers signed a petition to Congress to intervene because they were under pressure to allow for super charged values in their appraisals that would not withstand the test of time. They warned that the results would be catastrophic. Of course, Congress and the Bush administration did nothing despite 8,000 upstanding appraisers concerned about whether they could ever work again under the intimidation of the banks.

For reasons that defy logic, both pro se litigants and attorneys have steered clear of this claim, apparently under the mistaken impression that because the borrower paid for the appraisal, they owned it and their reliance on it was their own problem. In fact, the story goes, the borrower liked seeing the high appraisals. It made them feel good about the "deal" they were getting. None of that is a proper defense against appraisal fraud against the originator and all those who pretend to take title to the loan all the way up to the top of the pyramid where the loans are claimed to be authentic (which they are not) and where the REMIC trusts allow intermediaries to use their names in foreclosure action claiming the REMIC owns the loan (which they do not).

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 14, 5:49 pm CST

Shelley, you've generated your own sirocco there!

Just repay the loan.

The bankers were making loans, not selling houses.
For those theories to work, you have to also inculpate the house builders. Now you've got involved the bankers, the appraisers, the contractors. But you'll have to pull more into this conspiracy -- or it will collapse. But that just proves my point -- everyone -- including the borrowers were involved in this. Barney Frank was pressuing FNMA to make houses more affordable. He didn't care about FNMA. But it was not a conspiracy -- it was a bubble. You bought in and it popped.

That does not absolve you of personal responsibility.

I did not do the foolish things that you did, and your self serving holier than thou cry for sympathy is cloying. I don't want to pay for you or the other people who spent more money than they had.

This is another section of the same Neil Garfield artucke, My business and many customers businesses were feeling the cost of the banks crimes in 2005-6. My house was two years from being paid of when I took my loan out to weather the ecnomy crisises the banks had caused which I would never needed to take out a loan in the first place if the banks had not killed the economy by 2005, And continued to kill the economy to date.
The banks just found a way to procrastinate the crash.
The reason for the inflation of "value" was simple --- Wall Street was running out of people to sell on taking loans so they inflated the value of the homes in order for them to move more money around and continue selling bogus mortgage bonds. Had they not done so, the crash would have come around 2004-2006 rather than in 2007-2008-2009. Investors would have stopped the gush of money into mortgage bonds and the PONZI scheme would have collapsed then instead of a little later.

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 14, 6:01 pm CST

agree with Shelley.

I was a person who had a company for over 25 years. I was a person who made close to 200k a year. I had a 750k loan. That is why we can conclude here that I was someone who bought a house that they could afford. I was also never over 30 days late on my payments. I had perfect credit for all these years after many business transactions. That is why we can conclude that I was someone who was known to be smart and responsible. The end result would be that I lost my company because of the banks fraud greed. This is not even to mention that the value of my house went down more than half because of the banks fraud and greed. I should not have had to get a loan out on my house that was purposely over appraised for something it was not worth. This fact is well document around the internet with the testimony of a Countrywide whistleblower. The point is that I would have also made different business decisions if they told me everything that was going on. For example -- Angelo Mozilo knew what was going on as far back as 2005 according to emails submitted as evidence. It sure must have been nice that Angelo Mozilo was able to pull his investments out before it tanked. It is just too bad that they did not give any of us the memo. That way we could have all pulled out and made money too.

Then they gave the banks a bailout! The very ones who caused all this! They did not give one to small companies like mine. That really pissed me off! That is especially after you consider that my company was suffering from what they did and not what I did. Bank of America was initially given 45 Billion dollars in a taxpayer bailout. They would stand to make 450 million even if it was even at 1% interest. I bet you we would give it back too if we made 45O million free dollars from just having it. That is why – in retrospect – those who work at the top of the banks got a free home – after you consider that they were given free taxpayer money as part of their paycheck. That was a luxury me and my company did not have.

That is why I don’t care if people get their homes free and clear if there is proof that there is fraud in their loan. It is also why I don’t think they should feel any worse about not paying that loan back than the banks felt about what they did to our country. That is because I consider it a rightful settlement after what these banks did to homeowners and Americans.

We all knew the housing market was a game of musical chairs. We knew that when signed on the dotted line. However – we all noticed this time that the bankers were already sitting down before the music stopped playing.

My name is John Wright AND I SUPPORT SHELLEY ERICKSON!

Respectfully,
John Wright

By Piggybankblog on 2013 01 14, 6:12 pm CST

If someone defrauded you, sue them. That's how it works. You don't go to your neighbor and ask for money because you dealt with crooks (if that's what they were -- I think it was a bubble).

It seems everyone nowadays wants money from the government -- which means from fellow citizens. You don't deserve it -- you borrowed money. If your claim is good, then you should win your fraud lawsuit. Goodness knows, juries will probably be on your side -- if your claim is even less than 1/2 decent you stand a 1/2 decent chance of winning.

Some pepole allege collusion or fraud on the part of the banks. There may have been instances of fraud here or there -- but it was not a generalized fraud by banks on the American public as alleged here and elsewhere.

Have you ever seen birds or fish move synchronously? How do they do this? There is no conspiracy or collusion among them. It does not take a conspiracy for a group to act in concert -- they are very adept at doing irrespective of evil impulses or intent. It does not make it criminal or fraudulent, however, when groups do this.

Still, it is your responsibility and you cannot shift blame. Many people -- people like me, wondered what was going on and felt that it was a lot of craziness. I didn't make a million dollars, but I certainly don't want to fund your mistakes.

Complain all you want, but pay your loan.

By Oort Cloud on 2013 01 14, 6:36 pm CST

Easier said than done. I gave one lawyer almost 9,000.00 for doing absolutely nothing did not file one paper. I am still trying to get my money back from her. and went to multiple attorneys for help. So I filed Pro Se and I am not an attorney so I lost due to proceedure. Now I have hired another attorney that is helping me fight this battle. I have never asked for tax money. Some have been so harmed they can not afford to hire attorneys, they can not even pay their bills, due to the rug was pulled out from under their feet in a web of deception. Good attorneys in most states including Washington state from where I am from are seeing judges block justice by not ruling by the rule of law, but biase ruling for the banks totally disregarding htethe rule of law. so they are forced to help by dealing with the devil and doing mods with a party of fraud. If the rule of law stood in America I trully believe this crime would not have gone so far. Good attorneys are threatened by the bar and even told no to show up at siminars. or be subject to loosing their license. I know this for a fact. An attorney in WA did not show up at a siminar I went to, whom was the guest speaker due to this threat. Try it get on the phone and tell the attorney you have been mortgage defrauded and they will tell you they can not help you. Or they flat out tell you if I help you I will loose my license. I had one attorney tell me that. I had another tell me you dont have enough money to fight the big banks.

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 14, 6:52 pm CST

Hi Oort Cloud. Listen -- I am suing them. I have also never asked my neighbor for money such as you suggested. That is why I am not really sure what that statement is to mean. However -- with that being said -- I did find it interesting that you did not seem the slightest upset about private banks getting 16.6 trillion dollars in taxpayer money. this is along with the fact they did not have to pay taxes like the rest of us did. Don't you think that is interesting? Now you are right that it was a bubble. Yet this bubble was much different than the others. That is because this bubble was inflated by fraud that was committed against the homeowner and the taxpayer. I am just happen to be both of these. Yes it is true that everyone seems to want money from the government. Yet not everyone gets 16.6 trillion dollars from the government like the private banks did.

Nevertheless -- I have to say that I agree with you about what you said about if the claim is not 1/2 decent. The truth is that I really do not see a lot of wins for those who have a 100% decent lawsuit with this issue -- even though I have seen some. California is a very difficult state because it is a none--judicial state with this matter. I also think it is because a lot of judges are having a hard time wrapping their minds around this complex issue. For example -- in a lot of cases the banks end up having multiple trusts and multiple beneficiaries existing to the point they are unable to correctly identify the actual owner of the debt at the time of the fraudclosure. This is verified by Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur who told homeowners not to leave their home because we would find out the banks lost the paperwork. Clearly -- homeowners should not pay the debt to someone who has inaccurately identified the actual one who owns the debt. They lost the paperwork while they greedily selling and buy these loans over and over again. That is why in a lot of cases the bank just makes it up. They do this by robo-signing and using falsified documents to facilitate an illegal fraudclosure in many cases. That is a crime. This can usually be proven I court at some point. For example -- have you noticed that there has not been even one case allowed to go to trial? The banks usually settle on the court steps. Why? If they were right you would think they would be happy to go to trial -- right? Wrong. They always settle if they cannot get it dismissed.

I agree with you that the economic crisis was not caused by a conspiracy. In fact -- that is why I wrote in my blog recently:

John's Daily Blog at dated January 8th, 2013: "My investigation would conclude that this whole economic crisis was a phenomenon that was caused by series of unrelated events. It would be a series of events that caused a chain reaction that would deliver us into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. There were simply many moving parts involved in this. There were so many that there was no way that any one person could have known from the beginning that this was all going to happen. That is why it is very unlikely that this was all caused by a conspiracy. Simply put — those chemicals you put in your hot tub can and will create mustard gas if you are not careful. That is why the Great Economic Crisis of our times might resemble the Titanic story at the end of the day. That is because experts are still wondering who is to blame for the Titanic sitting at the bottom of the ocean. Was it the icebergs fault? Was it the Captains fault? Was it the guy who did not yell out that there was an “iceberg right ahead” soon enough? Or — was it those weak rivets in the side of the ship that caused it? I don’t know the answer to this question. I just know that we would not have known about those weak rivets unless the Titanic hit that iceberg."

With that being said -- I must say with all due respect -- it is readily apparent by your responses that you do not really understand the complex legal issues with this subject. That is why I am not sure you should feel qualified to educate me on this issue with these kind of "Archie Bunker" hit and run statements about "birds and fish moving synchronously."

I also do not know why you think I have ever asked you or the taxpayers for money. (lol) That is why it would be appreciated if you would please educate yourself on the issues before you make these kind of dumb statements. It is also important to mention that I am not the one who seems to be complaining here. This is because -- correct me if I am wrong -- but it sounds like you are the one complaining. Nevertheless -- how about I worry about if I pay my mortgage or not. That way this can free you up to mind your own business.

In conclusion -- this is a perfect example of why those of you who think you know it all tend to really annoy those of us who do. (Wink)

Respectfully,

John Wright

By piggybankblog on 2013 01 14, 7:29 pm CST

Not only are the banks getting bailouts there settement for wrong doing is a tax deduction. so tax funds are paying the settlement. The investors that were taken by the banks are paying for the settlement then the banks get the tax breaks. What a web of deciet and total unacountablity by the banksters. Here is a cut and paste from Gretchen Morgen statement. The dollar signs are big, but they aren’t as big as they look, at least for the banks. That’s because some or all of these payments will probably be tax-deductible. The banks can claim them as business expenses. Taxpayers, therefore, will likely lighten the banks’ loads.

There is nothing new about corporations reaping tax benefits from payments made to remedy wrongdoing. Every so often, though, the topic stirs outrage. After the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, for example, BP received a $10 billion tax windfall by writing off $37.2 billion in cleanup expenses.

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 14, 7:50 pm CST

Plenty of bankers lost their shirts.

Also, plenty of people did cash-out refis and parked the cash somewhere, or blew it on Louis Vuitton, or put some of the cash up their nose. I dated someone who did all three, and hers is not an isolated case of which I have personal knowledge.

By DirkJohanson on 2013 01 14, 8:24 pm CST

I am sure not all propertty owners are innocent. but the majoritie in the millions are victims of the few that were not doing the right thing and victims of the banks and government that had the ablitity and the means to check and control and regulate the people that did the wrong thing. The banks not only allowed it the banks promoted the riskie loans to assure defaults they bet on to make more money.The banks have been 'in the default business not mortgage business. The government regulators betrayed the people enabling the banks to casue default loans to bid against their own clients to make trillions in the stock market and default mortgage business. All based on causing predeterimind guaranteed defaults to steal the wealtyh from Americans. A huge con game on all Americans using all Americans to pilfer and rob us of our money and property. The looser the regulations the more defaults. the looser the loans more defualts. Money Money to the banksters who only used peoples money to steal. There is not one peel of the onion the banks used their sophisticated CEO;s to find ways to make money at all cost disregarding warning of complete catastropy by their employees. Even Bush disregarded the Appraisers plea to stop the banks from black balling the appraiser to inflate house prices. The banks put pushed arm loans on people that the average person did not and could not understand without an attorney that guaranteed defaults. The banks have the means to contol risky loans and they chose to push them at all cost. The banks our S&P and regulators are the fault of this horrific crime against Americans. And the entire globe. Does it make any sense to you that 12 million homeowners should be losing their homes. Dont you question that at all.? As being a telling of the horrific evil crime going on. People whom had good jobs good incomes and could afford their houses now losing their homes. The banks have hidden a lot of the foreclosures by not forecloising on them yet. Almost every American has been touched by this economically in one way or another. And it has not bottomed out. Then their is the LIBOR rigged rates rigging all contracts almost in exhistance for the last twenty years Voiding almost all contracts by a matter of law. All rigged for profit by the banksters. No limit to the fraud. by organized crime. Do you question why so many banks are guilty of the same crime. All LIBOR rate rigged all fraudclosing with fraud docs all in the same tangeled web of deceit and fraud. Well organizied crime. and the judges causing their court rooms to be crime scenes blatantly defiing the rule of law to evade a landfall for the homeowners due to the bankd own hands at crime, and giving tghe land fall to the banksters whom did not use one dime to purchase the loans and are not the owners of the loans as a matter of law. Amreican has become the land of living hell for millions of Americans. People tell me everyday it would be better to be dead, and if they have lost a loved one, they tell me the loved one would not want to come back to earth right now for any reason. People are scarred and have been through hell.

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 14, 8:49 pm CST

Hi Kirk.

I am sure there were those kind of people. Yet I hope you are not saying that this is the only type of people who would end up in a position of not being able to pay their mortgage. That is because your friend does represent the majority of the people I know that had this happen to them. For example – I just spoke to a Mayor in Ohio the other day that was asking me for help who is under the same threat of foreclosure. I -- for example -- had a company for over 25 years that had serviced over one million people with an A+ rating. I had lots of employees for many years. I also had excellent credit after all the years of business I did. There was not a mark on it. I do not do drugs either. I was a family man. I also did not spend outside my means. That is why I think we can conclude that I would not have had my company as long as I did if I had the tendency to spend money I did not have.

The fact is that the banks collapsed the economy with what they did. They would also cause The Great Recession. This – unfortunately -- hit small companies who make up 85% of the economy. It was even harder for small companies who could not get a loan to float them through the recession. This is because a small company usually will get a loan to get through a recession. This is how it is always done. This time -- however -- the banks were not loaning any money – which is why so many companies were lost to this Great Recession the banks caused.
Now they feared nobody would pay them back if they loaned the money. Yet the bigger problem was that they could not get the investors to loan the money to the homeowners now that the investors found you that those AAA loans were actually not AAA loans. They were instead loans that the banks gave to a good majority of the people who could not afford the home they bought. It would simply collapse the market to the point that it cut the homeowners home value practically in half who could afford their home. That is why the federal government gave them a bailout. They wanted them to loan the money because it was a freeze up of credit that caused the Great Depression. Yet the banks did not loan the money like they said they would. They instead instantly gave themselves a raise and a bonus the minute they were given the bailout. They were basically rewarding themselves for collapsing the American economy and the American Dream for so many.

This -- however -- is not to suggest that there were no "bankers" who lost money. It just did not seem like it was the ones at the top were the ones who were losing their homes. For example -- Angelo Mozilo seemed to mysteriously pull out all his investments just before the market collapsed. That was a pretty good guess – don’t you think? The investors are the ones who lost a lot of money too. That is why they ended up turning around and actually suing the banks. History will show that the banks were practically the only ones who remained solvent when the crisis hit. They admitted they did not even need the bailout at the time. Why would they? They were the ones who made all the money of this .

In conclusion ---I cannot tell you how hard it is to hear some little old lady who is 95 years on the other end of the phone crying because the bank is kicking her out the house she lived in practically all her life. Obviously something went wrong that never had before if something all the sudden was putting the average person under threat of foreclosure when they normally had never been before. I am sure that you agree with me that she did not blow her money on drugs.

Respectfully,
John Wright

By Piggybakblog on 2013 01 14, 8:54 pm CST

Kirk, many people I know had over 800 credit scores, like myself. Before the crash began to show up in 2005, The dramatic drop in incomes did not cause the bills to drop as fast as the incomes dropped. And many lost their credit ratings that were harmed by the drop and the banks fraud docs of fraudclosures when the banks had misappropriated money on their mortgages as well. One of my very wealty friends of a family that own a huge industrial park here in our area had their funds misappropriated to cause default. The family went to the bank and asked for the pay off figures to pay cash for the house to stop the crime against them, the bank told them they could not give them the payoff ammount that it was in the banks best interest to foreclose. Another party I know is an investor, that had loaned his money on the second. The party walked away from the house, so he foreclosed on her to save his investment and went ot GAMAC to get pay off figures to pay off the first. He has the money! The bank refused like they did Kathu's house. And foreclosed on him. He is still fighting the foreclosure. He has good credit and does not need to borrow to pay it off. He has the cash. GAMAC refused to allow him to pay it off. PERIOD. My credit score was over 800. We have all been scammed by the biggest scam in history.

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 14, 9:22 pm CST

the florida bar should go after the rest of the remainding hoodlums throughout the state, the likes of Shapiro, Fishman & Gache to start

By victor on 2013 01 14, 10:21 pm CST

I was trying to pull us an article from two years ago that was a judge that was having issues with his lake side home being foreclosed on due to his modification was turned intothe fraud modification I experienced, however it seems to have disppeared.He was a little disgraced due to he asked for the mod with a great income coming in, and was surprized as many of thousands of us were, When the banksters unapproved us after paying religiously and doing all the bank asked for some of us five months and some up to nine months, the banksdeceuved us, by turning the modification payments into partial payments and claiming we were in default. Then not accepting anymore payments and came in for the kill misusing the HAMP plan and their contracted promise, to mod our loans. Qualifying us and approving us then unapproving us. Then never appling the mod payments to the principle or payments of any kind. We keep records and bank statements. I paid all but one of my by phone transferring the money to the payment. The first one was a money order. The banks are scandulous. Peiople like me were never behind and in default we paid on time and were scammed by the misuse of the HAMP program, due to we were quickly losing our incomes and could se the tree before the forest and needed to work a mod before we did get behind if the incomes kept dropping. The banks caused the income losses. the right thing to do was to work out something with us, but they chose to deceive us even more egregiously.by causing a fraud induced default by claiming we never kept up on our payments or even claimed we defaulted on the mods which was totally untrue. My son did fall behind and he was way behind, But Countrywide ageed to accept eleveen payments of douible payments from him, so he workd overtime and did side jobs to pay ten of them and when he went ot pay the elventh one the bank refused the payment and told him they were going forward forclosing on him. Just a terrible thing to do to a young thirty year old, trying to keep his house and scammed by the banksters. People are committing suicide over this crime and killing lock smiths and all sorts of gut wrnching horrible actions due to these banksters. I have no pitty for the bigh banks. And yes the smaller banks have fallen prey to them also. A freind of mine who was part owner in a small local bank has almost lost all of his retirement funds trying to keep up with his bills due to the large banks so it is not all bankers. The big top seventeen banks need to be torn apart and the employees involved and enabling the crime put in to jails. That were not bullied to do the crime but did the crime.

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 14, 11:40 pm CST

Due to no hppt allowed here, you will just have to believe me Now Chase is under consent order to evade Cease and Desist order due to money laundering. There are no peels of the onion the banks have not committed horrible crimes. HBSC has been money laudering drug cartel money and terrorist money to Alquida. The banks are the terrorist/ The banks have committed economic terror, which is one of the best ways to take a nation down or an ememy, and unlawfully stolen and seized property they have never been a party to. By fraud con games, ponzie schemes, bid rigging, LIBOR rate rigged, by fraud false affidavits to the court making false claims committing fraud upon the court.deemed the worst of the worst, crime therefore unlimited statutes. The judges allowing this fraud and enabling it are violationg 18USC4 which is a misdemenor and a felony and can mean prison time. Then to knowingly support our enemy terrorist and push drugs on our people whom seem to be to vulnerableto say no. Anyone with accunts in the big banks should transfer their business to credit unions. Shred your credit cards. Boycott the big banks.

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 15, 1:37 am CST

The kind of money drug cartel can put through banks has to be so staggering it could not be unnoticed.

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 15, 1:40 am CST

This is a violation of the 26 billion dollar settlement. They had to commit a crime in this as well.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/14/foreclosure-review-failure-start_n_2468988.html

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 15, 2:40 am CST

The corrupt banks breached the 26 billion dollar settelment with bulling the independent foreclosure review. this is what one of them claims: “We knew what we were looking at,” said one employee. “But we were told under threat of losing our jobs to not report what we saw.”

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 15, 2:50 am CST

Comment removed by moderator.

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 15, 2:54 am CST

To much is monitored and kept off this site to prove the truths so I will no longer engage in comments on this sight.

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 15, 4:14 am CST

To stop the "banks" from "preying" on unqualified borrowers, I hereby propose federal legislation prohibiting anyone who does not have a college degree in a hard science, business, or law to attend a two-week boot camp before being allowed to borrow more than $1,000 at a time. Anyone who is qualified but who allows someone who is not qualified to watch their TV - whether it be "reality" TV, sports, award shoes, daytime talk shows, and the like (there would be exceptions for news, C-Span book reviews, and such) - shall be sentenced to a year in prison, which must include at least 10 hours a day of having to sit upright in a wooden chair watching Jersey Shore reruns.

People who have children-out-of-wedlock would not even be eligible to enter the boot camp program, though they could qualify with the proper degree.

By DirkJohanson on 2013 01 15, 4:29 am CST

I should add that it would be a financial literacy boot camp.

By DirkJohanson on 2013 01 15, 4:32 am CST

I agree a financial boot camp would be a good idea, due to making law a basic required class in Junior high to highschool would do no good, due to the rule of law does not apply to the judges anymore. The land is lawless.

By Shelley Erickson on 2013 01 15, 6:52 pm CST

Comment removed by moderator.

By Piggybankblog on 2013 01 15, 10:09 pm CST

Shelley --

You were right! This site censors things that they do not like. Interesting. In fact -- I have never really seen a site like this before. It is the signs of an insecure site owner. It is clear it does not take much to hurt their feelings. That is why it is safe to say they should not dish it out if they can't take it.

I think I am going to expose this site on my blog for hundreds of thousands of people to see what this site is really all about.